[93509] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Tue Jun 5 03:57:36 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FCCBDD6.6040206@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:57:23 +0200
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
loghaD:
>>> However, my favorite remains {wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej.}: It's
>>> short and succinct.
SuStel:
> I would once again point out that {-pu'} indicates perfective aspect (a
> completed event in its entirety) rather than perfect tense (doing something
> prior to the time context). Lack of a Type 7 suffix means the verb is
> neither completed nor continuous, a propensity to the verb.
But does being neither completed nor continuous necessarily indicate propensity?
{yaS vIlegh} means "I see the officer", not "I generally see the officer".
SuStel:
> "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. 40)
I think that leaves room for {yaS vIlegh} to mean "I see the officer
(at the moment, in this instant only)". It's not {yaS vIleghpu'}
because the act of my seeing him isn't done yet (he hasn't left the
room, say), but it's also not {yaS vIleghtaH} because I'm not
continuously looking at him, nor {yaS vIleghlI'} because my seeing him
isn't proceeding towards some expected goal. He just happens to be
there, and I see him.
Or do you think this sentence was simplified for pedagogical purposes
and doesn't mean what the translation says it means?
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
